jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (7 posts)

A New Controversy or Maybe Not: The Harvey Milk Stamp

  1. profile image0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9034191.jpg
    On what would have been his 84th birthday, Harvey Milk---a San Francisco Supervisor assassinated by former Supervisor Dan White on November 27, 1978,  had a stamp dedicated in his honor at the White House.

    So angry about this honor is the American Family Association that the organization is directing its staff and national members to not only boycott use of the stamp, but to refuse to open any mail to which the stamp is affixed.

    And yet, despite such protests, post offices around the United States are experiencing high demand for the stamp; demand akin to past sales of other long-anticipated commemorative stamps.

    What are your thoughts on the stamp and the decidedly negative or positive reactions of some to the stamp?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We shouldn't honor someone promoting civil rights?  Or, considering Martin King is black and Cesar Chavez is brown, we shouldn't honor white people promoting civil rights? 

      Guess I'm just a dumb hillbilly, 'cause I don't get it at all.

      1. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I strongly suspect that some among us cannot tolerate the fact that honoring Harvey Milk---for promoting the civil rights of gay and lesbian people, means that American attitudes have changed about gay and lesbian people; that Americans have come (for the most part) to understand that homosexuality is an immutable trait (like race or ethnicity) and that gay rights issues are, in fact, civil rights issues.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Does that mean that we should only honor people that promote civil rights we personally participate in?  Because I should probably ignore references to the likes of Susan B Anthony, Margaret Sanger and Eleanor Roosevelt if that's the case.  Too bad, as I highly respect all those women, but they all fought for women's rights in one way or another, and I don't have the proper equipment to participate.  I suppose I'd better take out the L in LGBT as well, right?

          But enough sarcasm - yes, America is changing here.  As usual, the people are dragging the religions along by the scruff of the neck, kicking and screaming all the way, but eventually the church will catch up to the improved moral structure of our society.  It just takes time, and never ending effort to protect the rights of everyone, not a select few that think they have the right to make moral decisions for all.  Eventually they will decide that their god of love didn't hate the people He created, after all.  That they are people, too, just as blacks and women are.

          1. profile image0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I surely hope you are right.

  2. AshtonFirefly profile image83
    AshtonFireflyposted 3 years ago

    I really don't think it's an issue unless someone's being forced to buy it. And then....really? A stamp is worth arguing over? Geez America is bored.

    1. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No...but you know LGBT organizations will use it on all that anti-family propaganda they send in such huge amounts to religious organizations. roll

 
working